Well stated.
+1

On 12/23/10 2:00 PM, MDK wrote:
> This business about "winning" and "losing"...
>
> For me, "winning" is about being in charge of my life and my business.   Who
> has veto power over what I choose to do?   Me.   That's winning.
>
> Losing:   When someone else has veto power over any decision I make.
> Example, the FCC decides which aspects of my business I can control, and
> which aspects THEY control.
>
> This is the precise argument over our nation's founding.   The rebellious
> types decided they'd had it, and they wanted to govern their own lives.
> Now, it's really hard to have a nation, with NO GOVERNMENT,  but that
> doesn't mean that you have to live with a tyrant deciding what powers to
> exercise.    We gave government limited powers, and everything else IS UP TO
> US.   Government does not get to decide what additional powers it has.   It
> does not get to "reinterpret" the establishing contract ( Constitution) for
> itself.   It has never been given that power.   No branch of government is
> delegated "interpretation" power of the Constitution, by the Constitution,
> for instance.   It stands on its own, with plain and obvious language anyone
> can understand.   Not even the Supreme Court.   Don't believe me?   Read the
> Constitution.
>
> In a microcosm, this is my point of view.    Neither Congress nor the FCC
> has any statutory authority in the Constitution to require you to do SQUAT,
> unless your business is somehow "commerce between the states".   And in that
> regard, it is still limited to the ability to override state policy toward
> commerce with ANOTHER STATE.   Just because you buy internet in state 1 and
> sell it in state 2 does not mean that Congress now owns you.  It just means
> that Congress can overrule any rules state 1 or 2 makes about what you do.
>
> When we take the attitude that it is inevitable that we are "regulated" as
> an industry, we have utterly forgotten the legal foundation of both OUR
> individual rights, our rights as business entities, and the statutory
> limitations of government.
>
> It's like establishing a contract between you and someone else, say, hiring
> a secretary, who, over time, decides that you are subservient to the
> employee you pay, and starts making your decisions for you.   You, legally,
> would fire this person, and that's the end of that.   Congress and the FCC
> simply do not have the authority to do many things they want to do.   We
> should be bound, by civic duty, and by citizenship, to simply say "No".   It
> is US who should decide if we WANT any federal laws on the matter, and if
> so, we ask for them, and if we decide they can't do anything useful, we say
> "no" and send them packing.   No, not the people who want to control their
> neighbor's business, but those who own the business decide.
>
> We are in an "outside of the law" situation.   Both Congress and the various
> agencies have decided for themselves what powers to exercise, far in excess
> of their constitutional limitations.    And, for whatever reason, we have a
> significant segment of the population who likes this situation, of having an
> unlimited and unrestricted government controlling them.   Why "unlimited"?
> Well, if you specify what your employee is empowered to do, and instead,
> your employee takes upon themselves full control over your enterprise...
> Then the agreement between you is broken.    Either you assert your
> contractual standards... or there are no standards.   Either you enforce
> your employee's behavior, to contractual limitations... Or your employee
> just does WHATEVER he or she wants.    It really is an all or nothing
> situation.
>
> If you do not assert your dominance, which exists as a matter of contractual
> law, then you have lost all authority to object to anything.   You cannot,
> as a matter of consistency say "I Object to the breaking of this part of the
> contract between you and me" and at the same time, refuse to enforce most
> other provisions, and have any logical leg to stand on.    If it's not all
> valid, then who gets to decide what is and what isn't?
>
> I've been called "radical" and all sorts of things for this thinking.   But
> for the life of me, I cannot understand why.   There's nothing radical about
> insisting that your contractual rights be respected.   We have them, and
> they're contained in the Constitution.  And it says that WE, as the people,
> control our government, FULLY, except for approximately 36 specific,
> delegated, enumerated responsibilities ( the number is debateable, what they
> are isn't), and we have a process called "amendment" that gives us power to
> both further delegate and to rescind.
>
> I want that contract respected and honored.    How is that radical?
>
> And why do so many of you object?   It's all about law, and contract.
>
> We as businesses operate on agreements.   We have agreements with our
> customers.   We do x, they do y.   We're only in business so long as that
> specific relationship stays intact.    If we don't perform and / or, they
> don't pay, then it all falls apart.    If your provider fails to provide for
> you, and yet wants to be paid, you consider yourself ill used.
>
> Fundamentally, HOW do we maintain any valid contract, if the one that gives
> us the power to engage in those contracts... Is simply ignored?   Everyone's
> free to do whatever the heck they want.    And that's why we're in such deep
> doo-doo in this country.
>
> I keep being told this is "politics".    In some aspects it is, but it is an
> absolute essential aspect of being in business and is inseparable from any
> other aspect of our business.
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to